Analysis: How important is Moorside new nuclear plant to UK climate plans?

NuclearAnalysis: How important is Moorside new nuclear plant to UK climate plans?

The UK’s plans for a fleet of new nuclear plants have suffered another setback after Japanese firm Toshiba said this week it would not build the planned Moorside nuclear plant in Cumbria.

Moorside is supposed to be one of six new nuclear schemes built around the UK. These form the backbone of government plans to renew and decarbonise the UK’s electricity system.

Carbon Brief has a summary of the plans and how they fit into the UK’s climate and energy future.

Nuclear power

The UK currently has eight active nuclear power stations, all operated by French firm EDF. These sites are marked in blue on the map below, or follow this link to the interactive version (note that some sites have active sites obscured by red plants that have closed down).

These active plants have a combined capacity of 8.9 gigawatts (GW). Last year, they generated 72 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, around a fifth of the UK total and their highest output since 2006. The UK remains one of the world’s top ten producers of nuclear power.

However, UK nuclear generation is down by more than a quarter since a 1998 peak. Since then, some 4GW of capacity at eight sites has shut down. The UK’s remaining nuclear plants are also getting old; all of them are expected to close by 2035, with only Sizewell B lasting beyond 2030.

Meanwhile, the UK plans to cut emissions to 57% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to close all coal plants by 2025. That’s where new nuclear plants are supposed to come in.

New nuclear

The most recent government projections, published in 2015, suggest new nuclear power will play a growing role in the UK’s electricity mix. The UK’s nuclear capacity will begin to fall in the early 2020s, with the 1GW Hunterston B and 1GW Hinkley Point B closing in 2023 (see chart, below).

Projections of UK nuclear power capacity (blue line, left axis), new nuclear capacity (red line, left axis) and nuclear generation (yellow area, right axis). Note that the chart shows projections from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) produced in late 2015. In fact, nuclear generation in 2015 and 2016 was above 70TWh. Source: Energy and Emissions Projections 2015. Chart by Carbon Brief.

At the time the projections were made, these closures were supposed to be followed by the opening in 2025 of Hinkley Point C, a 3.2GW plant due to be built by EDF. After long delays, a final decision to go ahead with Hinkley C was taken last summer. Its two reactors are to open in 2026 and 2027.

Into this breach, according to the BEIS projections, would step another five new nuclear plants, more than cancelling out the closures and bringing total UK capacity to 16GW. The table below, from the World Nuclear Association, has the details.

Carbon budgets

The UK has legally-binding carbon budgets that mean it must cut emissions to 57% below 1990 levels by 2030. Actual emissions from the power sector are not counted in this total. Instead, they are covered by the UK’s allowance under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

If the UK were to leave the EU ETS – a prospect now being seriouslyconsidered – then power sector emissions might start counting directly against the UK’s carbon budget. This would complicate efforts to meet the emissions reduction goals.

In any case, new nuclear schemes would be expected to generate significant quantities of near-zero carbon electricity. For example, Hinkley C should generate around 25TWh of electricity, equivalent to roughly 7% of current UK demand. Similarly, Moorside would generate around 28TWh each year – some 8% of demand.

If either scheme fails to go ahead and the electricity is replaced by gas-fired power stations, it would add roughly 10 million tonnes of CO2 to the UK’s annual emissions (20MtCO2 for both).

If the 14GW of projected new nuclear plants were replaced with gas, it would add 42MtCO2, equivalent, or more than 8% of current UK greenhouse gas emissions (497MtCO2 in 2015). For the UK’s fifth carbon budget in 2028-32, UK emissions must fall to an average 353MtCO2 per year.

Alternatively, each 1GW of nuclear could be replaced with 2GW of offshore windfarm capacity or 3.2GW onshore, because windfarms have lower load factors than nuclear or gas-fired power stations.

Glossary

Load factor: A measure of the average output of a power station, relative to its installed capacity. This depends on technical and economic factors. For individual gas, coal or nuclear plants the load factor can in theory be above 90%. However, UK fleet-wide averages are much lower. The range of fleet-wide average load factors during 2010-2014 was 28-62% for gas, 40-57% for coal and 65-74% for nuclear. The range of rates for the UK's renewable fleets was 10-11% for solar, 22-28% for onshore and 30-38% for offshore wind. Newer windfarms tend to have larger turbines, particularly offshore, and are expected to reach load factors of up to 48%.

Load factor: A measure of the average output of a power station, relative to its installed capacity. This depends on technical and economic factors. For individual gas, coal or nuclear plants the load factor… Read More

To replace all 14GW of planned new nuclear would therefore require 28GW of offshore wind or 45GW onshore, compared to current capacities of 5.1GW and 9.4GW respectively. These figures are far beyond current plans and could even push the limits of what is technically possible for the UK.

See this earlier Carbon Brief article for some important details about these figures and discussion of the costs of intermittent generation, as well as a longer explanation of the accounting rules currently used for carbon budgets.

Nuclear progress

Of the planned new nuclear schemes, Hinkley Point C is the most advanced, having secured government approval and a final investment decision from EDF last year.

In November, a second stage of public consultation opened on EDF’s plans to build another new plant at Sizewell C. In January, it signed agreements with China General Nuclear on financing for the scheme. However, doubts hang over EDF’s financial position.

Next in line was supposed to be the Moorside scheme. However, Toshiba’s financial problems have cast a shadow over the project. It was to be built by NuGeneration (NuGen), a 60:40 joint venture between Toshiba and French firm Engie.

While Toshiba theoretically remains committed, it has said it will not take part in construction. It also owns Westinghouse, which was due to supply the reactors. Meanwhile, Engie is rumoured to want to withdraw from the consortium.

Horizon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese firm Hitachi, is due to build two 2.8GW plants at Wylfa on Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire. Horizon is expected to apply for planning consent for Wylfa later this year and the plant is nominally due to open in 2025.

For more on the history of EDF’s recent new nuclear schemes, check out this Carbon Brief article. For an in-depth look at the reasons why many new nuclear schemes have been delayed and over budget, Environmental Progress has some useful analysis.

Conclusion

The government has significant hopes for new nuclear to help renew and decarbonise the UK’s electricity system. The schemes – and the companies behind them – continue to face delays and financial problems.

This poses problems for the security of UK electricity supplies, given plans to phase out coal and limit new subsidies for renewables. If the UK leaves the EU Emissions Trading System (EUETS), then it could also pose a major challenge to meeting the UK’s carbon targets.

Sharelines from this story

Analysis: How important is Moorside new nuclear plant to UK climate plans?

Many fewer such unsustainable nuclear power station would be required if more effort was put into reducing energy consumption. If the amounts of money proposed for Hinkley point was put into retrofitting the housing stock and making developers build more efficient houses, it would save more energy that the station is designed to produce.

Thor⚛

Wind cannot replace nuclear, it is intermittent & requires a backup system, invariably this is fossil.

Andrew Warren

I entirely endorse this point, but would add to that the potential for continuing reductions in the commercial and industrial sectors too. One factor all these statistics quoted above fail to acknowledge is that, in the ten years since Britain set out on this new nuclear path, actual electricity consumption has already dropped by over 15% – a trend entirely ignored by BEIS planners. All of which means that Hinkley Point and Wylva would be contributing 18 % of total consumption rather than the 15% claimed

David Toke

To suggest that 28GWe of offshore wind never mind anything else is pushing the boundaries of what is technically possible for Renewables is nonsense. The Dogger Bank projects alone is nearly 5GWe. Why isn’t Carbon Brief more active in advertising the failures of the Government to implement renewable energy projects?